From: Mark H. <ma...@os...> - 2004-05-12 14:18:49
|
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 16:22, Jon Maloy wrote: > I am not sure. In your first analysis of the problem you > found that it was a dying process that was causing the > processor to hang while trying to grab the node lock, which > was then presumably held by the tipc_rev_msg interrupt, > or a tasklet. > That is the opposite scenario of what you describe here. I see the hang both ways. > > Also, this was no different in the old implementation: > we shared the same lock between user level/tasklet code > and interrupts without any problems. If you are right, > why don't we have deadlocks all the time then ? That is a good point, but it does seem a possibility. > > I think I will re-read Rusty Lynch "unreliable guide" > once more... That is Rusty Russell. -- Mark Haverkamp <ma...@os...> |